#rahakasha

[veliseraptor]

rahakasha replied to your post “write-like-an-american: sarah531: I think it’s overlooked...”

Fair post, but I do have exactly one issue to take with it --- Marvel/Disney has been upfront for *YEARS* that Infinity War was a two part movie. If you went in thinking that the plot would be nicely wrapped up and the heroes victorious at the end of Part 1, then all I have to say about that is "You clearly don't understand how Two Parters work". Which in itself is odd as most tv series make frequent use of two parters for their mid-season or end of season finales.

first off, I think you may have been replying to the wrong post.

also: actually, not entirely true. the Russos have been saying for quite a while that Avengers 3 and 4 are “not a two part movie” - c.f. quote from the linked article: 

“These two movies will also relate, there’s a narrative thread that is connecting these films, but at the same time, there’s an independence in terms of what the experience is or where the story goes. It isn’t a true two-parter, and I think the two-parter concept came back when Marvel decided they were going to culminate the MCU, it was going to be a two-movie deal. But as we developed the movie, in execution, it ended up being more of two singular expressions.”

and from a different article (even earlier, around the time Civil War opened):

“I asked the brothers how they decided where to divide the movie – and they said this was a misconception because the two movies are entirely different entities.”

so...yeah, that actually was a really misleading way to put things, sometimes known as “a total lie.” and I’m not sure if your comment was meant to sound condescending toward people (like me) who didn’t like Infinity War (”you just don’t get it!”) but that is sure how you’re coming off. 

furthermore, you compare to TV show finales, but that’s a little facetious too - waiting a year between movies is a far different experience from waiting a week (or sometimes not even that - finales sometimes air back to back) for something that is inherently meant to be a serialized format (as opposed to movies, which are not typically a serialized medium - and even in a “series” of movies like the MCU, each stands on its own as a complete story.). so...that comparison falls flat. 

it is also possible to wrap up the first part of a two part movie without leaving things on such a miserable downer note. shockingly enough. for instance: Mockingjay Part 1 ended with Peeta’s rescue - but the discovery that he’d been brainwashed, and of course President Snow was still in power. Little victory, lasting problem. or Deathly Hallows Part 1, which ends with the trio escaping the Malfoy estate, but Dobby dies and Voldemort recovers the Elder Wand. little victory, painful loss, Voldemort’s still out there. the commonality here, you may notice, is that there is a victory. some satisfaction. some catharsis. looming darkness, sure, and everything’s not all wrapped up and fine, but there’s some sense that everything is not irredeemably awful. check out Chuck Wendig’s post on Infinity War’s lack of a denouement and how it impacts the experience of watching it - as compared to the other thing people keep comparing it to, The Empire Strikes Back, which does (again) offer an easing of tension and a taste of hope, even if the Empire still rules and Han has been taken away. 

that’s what Infinity War was missing, and that’s why people are upset. because a) structurally, the finale of this movie did not offer resolution in the way that moviegoers generally expect, even from the first in a two-part movie and b) the filmmakers seriously misled everyone in pretending this wasn’t a two-part movie to begin with - which, if they mean that, they’ve got some structural problems.

this isn’t just a matter of people being stupid or even deliberately obtuse - there are issues here that aren’t just “oh people don’t understand the concept of serialized media.”

[iwritesnortsintragedies]

Responses to my ‘I hate the idea of teacher!Harry’ post

[Link to the post for reference]

I also kind of want to make it clear that just ‘cause I personally hate the idea it doesn’t mean I think people shouldn’t be allowed to like or use it—I’m just gonna make sure to play in a different sandbox for the sake of everyone involved xD

That being said, since the post was kind of bare-boned and written in the heat of the moment, more explanations/reasoning is fair game. Ahem. Onto the debate, such as it is.

@ginmo said: I get what you're saying and I'm 50/50 on the Harry as a teacher thing, like I really don't care what profession JKR would have given him because I see value is each, but the boundaries and culture you're attributing to the profession in the real world is not necessarily there in the magical world (and I'm a teacher -high school- too lol I didn't expect to see a lot of teachers on here!)

Haha, hi fellow teacher! (I have different conditions tbh, I teach in a French Institute which is more like a...private language school? Sort of? Vastly different from teachers in the national education network of France, at any rate)

Honestly, I disagree with the idea that Hogwarts would be freed from the limitations that exist in muggle schools.

After all, Albus Dumbledore was a very influential person, and even he couldn’t prevent his own firing (courtesy of Lucius Malfoy and some kind of parents council or whatever else in COS) Dolores Umbridge’s presence in OotP, or Lupin’s firing due to prejudice in PoA. True, those were in the specific context of mounting fascism in the magical world and Dumbles was a very flawed person, but still.

Plus, while we don’t know for sure whether Hogwarts is a private or a public school (or in any case, the knowledge escapes me) it is, as far as the books state, the only wizarding school in GB, so you bet your butt people are going to keep an eye on it and demands are going to be made.

If Dumbledore couldn’t make the school into its own little kingdom, I highly doubt later headmasters/headmistresses will manage it, even if I have every confidence that some of them will work their hardest to make things better.

@rahakasha said: I always thought that if he did any teaching it would be tutoring - weekends/summer for Hogwarts students or perhaps home tutoring for non-Hogwarts students. He'd be able to set his own schedule, location, terms (if contracts are needed), and so on.

(Sorry, the @ feature didn’t want to work for your url :/)

It is a possibility indeed, and there would be more leeway there (plus of course creative license since there’s no canon about that option). However, even when privately arranging with a family, you are not free to do whatever you want—they are your clients, you’re their employees, and you’re forced to compose with them and their demands, whether you think they’re reasonable or not.

(For ex : If a parent says they want their kids to have four hours of class every Saturday morning with you, it’s delicate to refuse, first because they might not accept or appreciate your attempt to influence their kid’s education, and second because you might lose a client and you sort of do need them for a living)

Plus, from what I’ve seen and experienced, people who ‘buy’ lessons for their kids tend to treat said lessons as a product. They often want visible results as soon as possible because, well, they don’t always want/have the ability to pay for too many hours in the long run. This is actually very frustrating for teachers, especially when the expectations for results fail to take into account the realities of teaching and learning.

(To be fair, most of it is born of a lack of education to the topic, but it doesn’t make things any more agreeable for the teachers involved).

@crocordile​ said: Hogwarts is so different from a regular school, I really feel like Harry would have much more ground to make a positive impact on children who need support - because they're being bullied or anything of the sort....  with minerva as principal moreover it'd be a very different things, they could work together and do so much...                     In this job, he'd BE the authority, only minerva above him, Btw I don't mean to come onto your post and annoy you sagvdbhfrgnjsd just exposing why some of us don't find it hateful even if we are teachers ourselves dealing with the terrible aspects of our profession :S I'm positive most people with that headcanon see harry as a solution to the problems you bring up, rather than being caught in them, etc

(Frankly, I disagree on the idea that it’s that different from a regular school. The topics and building are different but it didn’t seem to me like the pedagogy or lessons structures were that different from things I’ve seen or experienced as a student or during my nine months of working in Scotland. Hogwarts, to me, seems fairly modeled on the UK’s schol system, but I might be wrong.)

I mean, yes, he’d have power to turn his classroom into a better environment, but changing the school would be dependent on his colleagues’ and superiors’ active cooperation, which is never a guarantee. Plus, even with his hierarchy’s full support, McGonagall (or any other headmistress/headmaster) isn’t above the law or the various institutions meant to control Hogwarts, and war prestige only gets you so far (see my response above about external influences on the school life during Harry’s years).

Like, yes, Harry could make a positive impact as a teacher, but it would still be delayed no matter how you cut it, which I really, really can’t picture him being okay with.

Also, you mention bullying but what about the abuse that happens at home? What about students who are too poor to afford proper living conditions outside Hogwarts? As a teacher, he’d do what he can but I doubt he’d be able to offer much in terms of practical, immediate solution (let alone solutions he could have control on).

Of course, the job of Auror comes with its own trappings in that respect because he wouldn’t be on the field 24/7 and there would probably be a TON of paperwork, but at least with every job finished he’d know for a fact that he had a real, measurable influence on making the world a better place, which I honestly think he needs to see.

(Hogwarts, while an important place, isn’t the world, after all, and I’m not sure Harry would feel satisfied to limit himself to such a small microcosm without even being able to address the causes of his students’ distress)

That being said, don’t worry, I wasn’t annoyed by your intervention :D

Like I said at the start of the post, while I have a visceral dislike for the idea I don’t mind that not everyone shares my opinion I just...avoid entering the debate with staunch proponents of it? Mostly because I know I’d get irritated and snippy and that wouldn’t be interesting for anyone involved, honestly.

Debates along less wide chasms I can manage, though, I hope xD

[veliseraptor]

rahakasha replied to your post: rahakasha replied to your post ...

And yet, when it was introduced in 2014, it was explicitly stated to be a two-parter. Perhaps Russo didn’t have the film script hammered out and went back and forth… but it *was* billed as a two parter that long ago cnn.com/2014/10…

yes, and then they changed their tune more recently - going so far as to remove the initial “part one” from the title (see here, from 2016), and stuck with that claim all the way up to the film’s release - that first article I linked is from March 2018. so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

also, the rest of what I said still stands. two parter or not, there are still issues with how the studio chose to conclude the first half, that I think were poor choices. you’re welcome to disagree, but my analysis has nothing to do with “not getting” the concept of a two part film.